One NFL general manager labels this draft as the worst draft in 10-12 years, Mike Freeman of CBS Sports reports.

"When we look back at this draft in five or 10 years," said the team executive, "we might view it as one of the worst we've seen in some time."

Few team personnel want to say anything publicly about the paucity of talent out of fear of hearing from the NFL. There's this thought process that if you criticize the draft, you risk the ire of the NFL; the league doesn't want anyone publicly criticizing the draft out of fear of injuring television ratings.

The problem with this draft, says the general manager, is it possibly lacks two important qualities: franchise quarterbacks and large swaths of impact players. There will be more than a few solid players, this GM predicts, but not a large number of great ones.

"There will be 13-15 players picked in the first round that are true first-rounders," he said. "That's a fairly low number."

Last year, according to the general manager, there were 20-23 players who were true first-rounders. That's about average.

What did the Seahawks do (a team who values draft picks more then anything) ? They trade their first round pick for a young player who has the wow factor. These two were all over the fact that it was a weak group of players in the first round. Once again we get the most value.

Last year, according to the general manager, there were 20-23 players who were true first-rounders. That's about average.

Anyone else feel this is a weird statement? What is this guys criteria for being a "true" first-rounder? There are 32 picks in the first round, so shouldn't an average year have about 32 "true" first-rounders....a less than average year has less than 32 first rounders and an excellent year has 32 first rounders....or do you have to be a top half of the first round talent to be a "true" first-rounder?

Last year, according to the general manager, there were 20-23 players who were true first-rounders. That's about average.

Anyone else feel this is a weird statement? What is this guys criteria for being a "true" first-rounder? There are 32 picks in the first round, so shouldn't an average year have about 32 "true" first-rounders....a less than average year has less than 32 first rounders and an excellent year has 32 first rounders....or do you have to be a top half of the first round talent to be a "true" first-rounder?

I get what you're saying, but what I think the GM was trying to say was "based on talent, only 20-23 players deserved to be in the first round". There's always those players who get "reached" for that may not deserve to be in the first round.

dontbelikethat wrote:I get what you're saying, but what I think the GM was trying to say was "based on talent, only 20-23 players deserved to be in the first round". There's always those players who get "reached" for that may not deserve to be in the first round.

Actually, if you think about it further, his statement really doesn't make sense and is just based on some arbitrary grading system. If there are only 20-23 players who "deserve" to be in the first round, then what does that make the other 10 or so first round draft picks in the first round? Does that mean every pick in the lower part of the first round can only get you at best "second round value?"

But here we have a logical fallacy. If the term "first round value" is indeed only based on where certain players should be drafted, how can you not at least fill up the whole first round with players that should be drafted there? More simply, how can only 20-23 players be called first round value when there are 32 picks in that round?

Here's what I get out of this. This GM says this about the draft but he is probably looking at the draft talent in the usual NFL talent evaluator light. But my guess is that if you look at this year's talent in the way JS and PC does there are some very good players to be had. Of course we won't know right away but by the time the season ends JS/PC will be proven right.

" Living on Earth isn't cheap, but it does include a yearly free trip around the sun."

I think it is a bad draft. Kevin Colbert said he only views 6-8 draft picks as special. Their may be "pretty good" players in the draft after the top 20 but it doesn't sound like potential is available after 20 and past the 3rd round. When I hear how most teams want to trade back it just seems like after 10-20 most teams want to accumulate picks so they have a better chance at finding anything worth keeping. Forget the lack of top flight QB's and RB's....teams seem unwilling to even want to gamble on prospects like we did with Irvin. I think the Redskins and Seahawks did very well getting out of the 1st round since most teams seem to want to trade back.

I guess we'll see in a few years but I'm glad we aren't picking 25 and got Harvin, and I'm sure the Redskins are glad they got RG3 instead of a late 1st this year.

dontbelikethat wrote:I get what you're saying, but what I think the GM was trying to say was "based on talent, only 20-23 players deserved to be in the first round". There's always those players who get "reached" for that may not deserve to be in the first round.

Actually, if you think about it further, his statement really doesn't make sense and is just based on some arbitrary grading system. If there are only 20-23 players who "deserve" to be in the first round, then what does that make the other 10 or so first round draft picks in the first round? Does that mean every pick in the lower part of the first round can only get you at best "second round value?"

But here we have a logical fallacy. If the term "first round value" is indeed only based on where certain players should be drafted, how can you not at least fill up the whole first round with players that should be drafted there? More simply, how can only 20-23 players be called first round value when there are 32 picks in that round?

Aaron Curry wasn't a true first round talent, although he was projected by many as a safe bet.Nearly all first rounders are a gamble, and while the odds favor the top 18 to 24, there are usually players that don't get a lot of recognition, because most of the talking heads are up to their arm pits in hyping players that the media have doted on for several months.Chuck Gruden is a prime example of a guy that doesn't get caught up in the media "fooferahrah", and I respect a guy that takes the time to talk to and asks questions of a player and avoids jumping on a hype wagon.Just because almost everyone has a first round draft pick, doesn't mean that all the players that are projected to go in round one are legit first rounders.

I'm guessing he's not counting offensive linemen as "impact players", but ask any Seahawk fan what it was like after Walter Jones and before Okung, and they would say that offensive linemen (or lack thereof) can make a HUGE impact.

Pete and Jon's clairvoyance aside, the statement by the GM was absurd. He has no earthly way of knowinghow many of this draft class will excel. Some will certainly be players he does not deem first round worthy.

There will be players who were drafted in the lower rounds who will be starting this year, some may evenmake a difference. There will be undrafted players playing as key backups and some as starters by the2014 season. How do I know? I don't, same as him.

There are some brilliant General managers in the league. Ozzie Newsome, Mike Sherman, our own JonSchneider, others. There are also some who are..well, not so brilliant. Owners who run teams, whether officially or not and I'll never understand how Mike Lombardi scored his gig in Cleveland.

Whatever happened to the mantra of judging a draft class three years out?

pehawk wrote:Most times I assume any anonymous GM quoted IS JS. He has a very friendly and open relationship with a lot of the NFL guys. I know that’s not true all the time, but sometimes?

Prove me wrong.

The GM being quoted sounds like an idiot to me. So probably not. Bill Polian said very nearly the exact same thing yesterday. He said normally there are 18-22 first round picks and this year there are 10-15. Bill Polian, btw, is an idiot.

I disagree about the strength of the first round. 2013 is extremely similar to the 2009 group: over-rated and bust laden at the top but extremely strong in the latter half. The 2009 1st round produced a host of pro-bowlers and several nationally famous starters that haven't made the pro-bowl yet. It did suck royally for the first 13 picks though. The 2009 draft was ripped beforehand too, but ended up being very good in retrospect. 2005 was a similar story, too.

Ask Green Bay what they thought of those drafts. They picked late both years and walked out with Aaron Rodgers and Clay Matthews.

Additionally, the middle rounds this year are the deepest and best I've ever seen (Todd McShay and Mike Mayock have made similar comments). That alone would make the 2013 draft a fantastic draft even if the 1st round was weak, which I don't think it is.

The GM being quoted sounds pretty clueless to me. He puts far too much stake in a 1st round pick. Seattle has drafted fairly well in the 1st round under PC/JS, but it's only a very small part of what made the Seahawks a great team.

I also disagree about the number of 1st round talents this year. A lot of the guys with 2nd round labels are going to make future pro-bowls. I'm guessing they don't have a 1st round grade on Tyler Eifert for example, and Eifert is the best prospect at TE I've seen in a few years (without the benefit of hindsight). Do they have DeAndre Hopkins as a 1st round talent? He's going to be another Roddy White. Come to think of it, White probably didn't have a first round grade himself given that he was a late 1st.

Alex Okafor kicks the crap out of Nick Perry as a prospect, yet Nick Perry drew applause as a late 1st round pick last year while Okafor could easily fall into the 3rd or 4th round in 2013. So while I think it's partially true that the top of this draft lacks starpower at certain positions, the "2nd tier" of this draft is one of the best in it's history, and that means we'll see a sensational late 1st round and we'll see an unusually high number of great picks in the round 2-4 range (in hindsight).

Rat wrote:They made the trade because an elite playmaker who is only 24 was available, which pretty much never happens. I doubt it had anything to do with the strength of the draft.I disagree that this is a weak draft overall. It's only a weak draft for QB needy teams picking near the top.

Actually it did Rat. JS has said that at #25 he didn't see a difference maker that could be had at that spot. That if Percy was in this draft, he'd be a top 10 pick. That's the justification for giving up the 3rd is that for JS to move up considerably in the draft it would cost him at least a 3rd next year- and possibly more. So he saw this and an opportunity to get an impact player he was unlikely to get in the draft this year. I think this year's draft was a factor in that decision based on the comments made by JS.

dontbelikethat wrote:I get what you're saying, but what I think the GM was trying to say was "based on talent, only 20-23 players deserved to be in the first round". There's always those players who get "reached" for that may not deserve to be in the first round.

Actually, if you think about it further, his statement really doesn't make sense and is just based on some arbitrary grading system. If there are only 20-23 players who "deserve" to be in the first round, then what does that make the other 10 or so first round draft picks in the first round? Does that mean every pick in the lower part of the first round can only get you at best "second round value?"

But here we have a logical fallacy. If the term "first round value" is indeed only based on where certain players should be drafted, how can you not at least fill up the whole first round with players that should be drafted there? More simply, how can only 20-23 players be called first round value when there are 32 picks in that round?

I think your argument is off-base. I think what was meant was that the concensus 1st round picks = 20-23 in a good year. This year there is alot more uncertainty because of the lack of clear-cut blue chip prospects. Not every GM and team are going to grade the same 32 players in the 1st round. Clearly Bruce Irvin was graded higher on Seattle's board. The WR the 49ers took was higher on their board. I think he's saying in a normal year there are 20-23 clear cut 1st rounders that most everyone would agree were 1st round talent. IMO this makes perfect sense.

Last edited by jlwaters1 on Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

two dog wrote:Pete and Jon's clairvoyance aside, the statement by the GM was absurd. He has no earthly way of knowinghow many of this draft class will excel. Some will certainly be players he does not deem first round worthy.

There will be players who were drafted in the lower rounds who will be starting this year, some may evenmake a difference. There will be undrafted players playing as key backups and some as starters by the2014 season. How do I know? I don't, same as him.

There are some brilliant General managers in the league. Ozzie Newsome, Mike Sherman, our own JonSchneider, others. There are also some who are..well, not so brilliant. Owners who run teams, whether officially or not and I'll never understand how Mike Lombardi scored his gig in Cleveland.

Whatever happened to the mantra of judging a draft class three years out?

I think your missing the point. The GM didn't say anything about how this class will actually turn out. He's commenting based on grades placed on these players. Every year there are sure-fire first round talents taken and a decent amount flame out in a few years. Sure there's going to be some studs who come out of this class. But the fact is there are few blue-chip prospects. There is depth in the mid-rounds. In the end the GM will either be proved right or a fool, we'll have to wait and see. I like how JS is always positive, this GM sounds like he is one who say's "We'll he can't do this or that." From what JS has said it sounds like he's excited with what he can add to this team.

I take it as whomever the GM was is saying I will have to earn my money this year and actually evaluate versus having consensus good players at my position in the draft to pick from. This is the kind of draft that JS and PC will make bank on since they are fanatics about researching players for their system anyway.

To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!! Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. Member of the 38 club.

"True" 1st-round picks refers to players that MUST be drafted in the first round, or they will be gone. If there is a significant chance that they fall through to the 2nd round, then they are in a different category of player than players who must be drafted in the 1st.

As many have said, this draft is not top-heavy, but is solid and deep. That is exactly the kind of draft where it is harder to say which players MUST be drafted by a team with their 1st pick if they want to get him.

Not a weak draft at all... this is an extremely deep draft in the non sexy positions. Great for secondary players, defensive and offensive lines and even sold receivers. There just aren't many super stars that are usually hyped up and taken in the first 10 picks.

Even if the 1st round does suck, if it's stacked in rounds 2-5, that's still going to make it a good draft, especially for teams that have a lot of holes like the Jets and the Raiders. Although, you have to be able to find that talent.

About the whole "1st round grade thing", I agree with the comment that there is a consensus 20-23 1st rounders in an average draft....think about it: how many times have teams reached for important positions like QB and LT ? Positions of high risk high reward are many times drafted above their prospect status due to the position they play and it's importance. So, while I don't agree with the entirety of that GM's statement, that part of it makes sense.

Rat wrote:They made the trade because an elite playmaker who is only 24 was available, which pretty much never happens. I doubt it had anything to do with the strength of the draft.

Schneider has alluded many times to the fact that the first round is pretty weak and that there really is no difference from the 1st round to the second round.

They are well aware of it, and I'm pretty sure that is part of the reason why they were so willing to part with the 1st rounder.

Here's one quote I found alluding to it, but there are more:

Schneider has said on more than one occasion that he considers the not-yet 25-year-old Harvin the team’s first-round draft choice. And, even though Schneider won’t come right out and say it, the Seahawks were not going to get a player as good as Harvin if they had kept that 25th pick.

“When you look at this draft, it’s very unique,” Schneider said of a situation where it’s difficult to determine the Top 5 players in this draft class let alone who might be available at 25. “It’s the most unique draft, and I’m not just saying this because we don’t have a first-round draft choice this year.

“I felt that way a little bit when we made the deal with Percy. But now the closer we’ve gotten to this thing, it’s really kind of stood out that the first round is just a wide variety of players. It’s really going to be your favorite flavor of ice cream.”

IMO, it's semantics ... the GM was using layman's terms to describe it but I think I understand the general sentiment he was getting at, and I tend to agree with it.

Say you're using a 9-point grading scale. Players graded in the 8.5-9 range are considered truly "elite", Guys 8.0 & up are solid first rounders, guys 7.0 & up are solid 2nd rounders, etc ... Now, obviously not all the guys are going to get the same grade from every team, either minor differences (7.2 vs 7.0) or a few wide variances (Take Bruce Irvin, because of scheme fit the 'Hawks were willing to rank him around an 8, whereas other teams that don't utilize a LEO probably had him in the 6.0 range because he din't project as well as a 3-down 4-3 DE) But even despite the individual differences between teams, there's usually a general consensus of the "range" most guys fall in.

In a typical draft year, you'll have 7-10 players that fall in the >8.5 range, the another 20 or so guys generally considered to grade out in the >8.0 range. These are the "1st round guys" Now, because each team has their own needs & preferences it means that certain guys will rise/fall. A team that's drafting towards the end of Round 1 still has a great shot to pick someone they've graded 8.0 because some other team had him graded slightly different and passed.

I think what the issue is this year is there are fewer guys graded >8.0 and/or widely varying opinions on certain players (i.e., a team like the Eagles that wants a mobile QB will likely have a much higher grade on Geno Smith than a team that wants a pocket passer) But there are a ton of players in the 6.0-7.0 range. These are all very good players - 2nd or 3rd round grade. They're the core of your team, are above-average starters, and a lot of them are going to turn into Pro-Bowlers. The problem is that it's a much wider group to chose from, more room for error, and they lack the "name recognition" that the typical 1st rounder gets.

The main reason it matters and makes for a "weak draft" is because of the opportunity costs, contracts and public expectations that accompany a 1st round pick. High 1st rounders still carry significant contracts - the types of money teams usually want to spend on and structure their cap around the skill positions. Teams don't want to spend high picks on undervalued positions like RB, S, LB, or OG because of the increased costs (is the difference between an OG that you've graded as a 7.5 worth the extra price over an OG you've graded a 7 that you're pretty sure you can get in the 3rd? Or would you rather gamble that pick on one of the WRs that has a ton of questions and may bust, but if they pan out you've hit on an 8.0 that justifies his contract?) Even a player picked towards the end of Round 1 has more expectations placed on him (perfect example is James Carpenter, how would fan perception of his career value change if he had been selected in Rd. 2 instead of the 1st?)

IMO, this draft is very similar to the '09 draft - and in 3 years will probably be viewed the same. There's going to be a lot of quality players, and a few guys that prove to be "steals" in late rounds, but the 1st round is going to be a mess. Without consensus elite names at the top, there's not going to be much of a trade market. Teams that want to drop back will be forced to pick and will probably take more gambles to hit a "home run" and justify the cost of the high pick. We'll see a lot of busts at the top. The end of first round will be a crap shoot, because there are fewer 8.0 guys who will slip through, so teams in the bottom of the 1st will also have problems trading back and have to take guys with 2nd round grades ... they'll still wind up being solid players, but will probably be labeled as "underachievers" because their careers won't match the expectations usually placed on 1st rounders.

Bottom line, I think JS/PC definitely read this perfectly. They had no problem sending away that 1st because they knew it guaranteed an impact player usually only available in the top-15 of a normal draft, and they figured that pick #25 in this draft would net the roughly the same grade-range player they could get with #56. And since this is a draft that is especially deep in the middle rounds, it's exactly the type where their due diligence is going to pay off and they'll still be able to grab quality guys deep into the 3rd day.

I'm sick of chasing after my dreams. I'm just going to find out where they're headed, and catch up with them later.
- Mitch Hedberg

Rat wrote:They made the trade because an elite playmaker who is only 24 was available, which pretty much never happens. I doubt it had anything to do with the strength of the draft.I disagree that this is a weak draft overall. It's only a weak draft for QB needy teams picking near the top.

Actually it did Rat. JS has said that at #25 he didn't see a difference maker that could be had at that spot. That if Percy was in this draft, he'd be a top 10 pick. That's the justification for giving up the 3rd is that for JS to move up considerably in the draft it would cost him at least a 3rd next year- and possibly more. So he saw this and an opportunity to get an impact player he was unlikely to get in the draft this year. I think this year's draft was a factor in that decision based on the comments made by JS.

The other thing is...elite college players play against college talent - how does that translate into the NFL? We DO know how well Percy did against NFL talent - he's elite at the NFL level! Had Percy spent the last 4 years in college - he would very likely have been the #1 overall pick!